840.50 Recovery/4–748: Telegram
The Ambassador in France (Caffery) to the Secretary of State
us urgent
1813. Rece 53. We met Tuesday morning with Lintott and Baraduc of UK and French delegations on question inclusion of MFN provision and “non-discriminatory” phrase in CEEC document (see Cere 6, Rece 47 and last paragraph Rece 52).1 We explained Washington position, emphasizing importance attached to some such provision. We made it clear, however, that we were not insisting on adoption these provisions but felt it desirable from all points of view that importance attached to these provisions by Washington be understood.
Lintott and Baraduc went into history of MFN for Germany discussions, saying that it had been expected that question would be raised at GATT meeting at end Habana conference, but that matter had been postponed to July GATT meeting. Lintott said British had, therefore, been surprised to learn recently from Jackson in Washington that United States view was that this question should be covered in connection with ERP.
Neither British nor French consider it desirable or appropriate to include MFN paragraph in CEEC document. They say it would be most inadvisable to attempt and probably impossible to obtain agreement of participating countries on point which is essentially GATT problem.
Both Lintott and Baraduc, particularly the latter, take the position that participation of Germans as full partner in CEEC, including possible multilateral payment system, will result in greatest possible expansion of German trade with participating countries and that such participation makes MFN commitment unnecessary. Baraduc was concerned that MFN clause might create difficulties for Europeans to purchase dollar goods in Germany inasmuch as ITO charter would require purchase of same goods on basis non-discriminatory quota in United States.
On question of adding phrase “on non-discriminatory basis” to Article 6, British and French argued this unnecessary since it was covered by addition of phrase “in accordance with principles of ITO charter” which they were prepared to accept, They are also prepared to include in general obligations some reference to “tariffs” along lines paragraph 32 Paris report.
Lintott and Baraduc stated their position substantially as outlined above in meeting of committee three yesterday afternoon.
We believe it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to have [Page 414] the sixteen nations agree to words spelling out MFN for Germany. The same applies almost equally to inclusion non-discriminatory phrase. We will, therefore, not attempt to force these points further. We understand this accords with discretion implied in Cere 6.
Sent Department as 1813; repeated London as 249, Berlin 147.
- None printed.↩